Social Housing - Creating a monster

[TheBigShort]

That's brilliant so it is!

Its the direction that your proposal is headed. If you are dictating to where somewhere should live, then presumably you have a plan to provide employment opportunites for them in those locations?

But I have laid down a challenge to the Horseman above - can you point to a similar system, anywhere in the civilized and modern Western world?
Or are we saying that amongst these pages of AAM a ground-breaking idea has occurred that no-one has ever thought (not since Stalins time anyway)?

 

[TheBigShort]

So you are saying that we should just leave people in properties with spare rooms on the odd chance the children who have flown the nest might want to come back. At what point does this end, should we allow people keep empty bedrooms on the off chance that grandchildren may or may not need a room on the odd occasion?

Not at all, I'm asking you that upon the arrival of my 5yr assessment, the assessor arrives at my door to find that house is actually full, what do you do then?

 

[The Horseman]

Where have I ever said that people should take no responsibility. In the scenario I provided, the working family and their children took the responsibility of getting up and going to work, to taking risks - moving to England to pursue a dream career.
The family that subsequently took their home take no risks, take no responsibility - but hey, they are more needy! This is the system that is being proposed. And if you are convinced that it is futile, then perhaps point to me to the similar system operating anywhere in the Western world. Or do you think that in the pages of AAM that a ground-breaking realization has just occurred that no other civilized and modern society in the democratic world has thought of yet?


So, if I don't want to lose my home (I'm funny about things like that) upon assessment day, my kids come to visit (luggage in hand) and I explain to the assessor they have moved back in, no room at the inn here - see you in 5yrs! What do you do then?



So just get on with it then and stop moaning about the housing crisis as if any of you really care.

The family that take the home are more needy yes but if rent is linked to income with a min amount (not just based on a differential rate) and if this family are not trying to get gameful employment then their social welfare payments will reduce (therefore less income) if they have less income then they can't pay their rent (not just one based on a differential model but a min rent).

By adopting the above methodology there is an incentive to take responsibility otherwise they will lose their social house in a particular location and will need to be relocated to a lower cost location.

You don't want to lose your house as you are funny about things like that, well hey welcome to the real world. If I can't pay my mortgage do you think I can go to the bank manager and say hey I can't afford my mortgage because I lost my job or something else happened! Do you think he will just say no worries, or what about the private landlord what do you think he will say

I actually do care about the housing crisis as it affects us all! What I have a particular issue with is those gaming the system and never being held to account for it. When people are held to account for their actions then I will be happy, until then I will continue to voice my opinion about where my tax's are going if I believe they are not being spent correctly.

I am one of those who is a net tax giver to the state and always have been. I do have an issue with those who in my view are given an easy ride through life.

 

[The Horseman]

Its the direction that your proposal is headed. If you are dictating to where somewhere should live, then presumably you have a plan to provide employment opportunites for them in those locations?

But I have laid down a challenge to the Horseman above - can you point to a similar system, anywhere in the civilized and modern Western world?
Or are we saying that amongst these pages of AAM a ground-breaking idea has occurred that no-one has ever thought (not since Stalins time anyway)?

I actually was in favour of the bedroom tax model that the UK introduced. I thought it was a very progressive method similar to our tax system.

 

[The Horseman]

Not at all, I'm asking you that upon the arrival of my 5yr assessment, the assessor arrives at my door to find that house is actually full, what do you do then?

You make unannounced visits to verify who is actually living in the house. You visit at different times of the day or night to see who is living there. You look for proof of who is living there.

 

[TheBigShort]

You make unannounced visits to verify who is actually living in the house. You visit at different times of the day or night to see who is living there. You look for proof of who is living there.

So its not every five years then?
You call to house, no-one is in (it being unannounced). You follow up on with all the other relevant agencies and authorities to find out where the supposed occupants are living now, what they are doing, how much they are earning. Then upon 'assessment day', having got all the information you need to 'prove' there is spare capacity, you arrive at the door only to meet the sons and daughters who have returned home, that very day!
The son has 'separated with his girlfriend' again, and the daughter is moving back to care for the dad as he hasn't been feeling well lately.
What do you put on your assessment form - evict?

 

[Sunny]

So its not every five years then?
You call to house, no-one is in (it being unannounced). You follow up on with all the other relevant agencies and authorities to find out where the supposed occupants are living now, what they are doing, how much they are earning. Then upon 'assessment day', having got all the information you need to 'prove' there is spare capacity, you arrive at the door only to meet the sons and daughters who have returned home, that very day!
The son has 'separated with his girlfriend' again, and the daughter is moving back to care for the dad as he hasn't been feeling well lately.
What do you put on your assessment form - evict?

I see this is as ridiculous as ever.......Son and daughter over 18 and have moved out like the majority of young adults. Son and daughter encounter difficulties in life as adults like the majority of adults. Son and daughter make their own way in the world like the majority of other adults. If that means joining a housing list on their own right then so be it. Do you think my parents still have a room for me in case I need to move home like a child? No, they downsized when we all went off to live our lives. Very traumatic but I will survive.

Daughter needs to move in to after sick father but it is only a one bed apartment? Sure it happens in the other world as well. Either make do, look into home care, nursing homes like all of us have to do at some stage. If you want to apply for a bigger property, then absolutely no problem. There is probably a single mother living in a three bed house after her kids have moved out in the area that you can swap with. Oh wait, the UN would probably drag us to hague for crimes against humanity for even suggesting such a thing.

 

[TheBigShort]

The family that take the home are more needy yes but if rent is linked to income with a min amount (not just based on a differential rate) and if this family are not trying to get gameful employment then their social welfare payments will reduce (therefore less income) if they have less income then they can't pay their rent (not just one based on a differential model but a min rent).

So all they have to do is show that they are 'trying' to get gameful employment and they are quids in? You need to watch the movie 'Trainspotting' if you haven't already, or watch it again if you have.
You do realise that for every employment relationship that there has to be a job offer in order for there to be a job acceptance?

By adopting the above methodology there is an incentive to take responsibility otherwise they will lose their social house in a particular location and will need to be relocated to a lower cost location.

So they will lose their social house if they don't show 'responsibilty'? Where will they live then? No income, no home, I'm guessing its out on the street?

If I can't pay my mortgage do you think I can go to the bank manager and say hey I can't afford my mortgage because I lost my job or something else happened! Do you think he will just say no worries, or what about the private landlord what do you think he will say

Yes, you can enter to a mortgage re-structuring plan to delay, or reduce repayments for a period until you improve your circumstances. I assume it would be in your interest to do so? If not, then don't pay the mortgage, face eviction and join the top of social housing waiting list - because you will be the needy one.

What I have a particular issue with is those gaming the system

If people are gaming the system they should be penalized. But having a spare room or two in a house or earning a high income while living in a house is not gaming the system. You may think it should be considered as 'gaming the system' but it is not. There are many, many reasons as to why it is not. Least of all the few scenarios I have outlined, the administration burden, the certain legal challenges (from evictees, human rights groups, and the EU), and all other factors attributable to mental health issues and evictions.

I will continue to voice my opinion about where my tax's are going if I believe they are not being spent correctly.

So will I, and hopefully it will never be on half-baked proposals like this which will cost a fortune with no end product.

 

[TheBigShort]

I see this is as ridiculous as ever

I'm not surprised. You have a repeated habit of not picking up the jist of the point laid out in the post.

Son and daughter over 18 and have moved out like the majority of young adults. Son and daughter encounter difficulties in life as adults like the majority of adults. Son and daughter make their own way in the world like the majority of other adults. If that means joining a housing list on their own right then so be it. Do you think my parents still have a room for me in case I need to move home like a child? No, they downsized when we all went off to live our lives. Very traumatic but I will survive.

The point is, before the parents get evicted out of their home they decide they don't want to leave (they are going to game the system under the new regime). So they concoct a plan to have their son and daughter move back in with them for 'assessment day!'. What do you do then? You have to start a time-consuming investigation into proving they are gaming the system. That takes more costly resources.
Wouldn't it better just to build more housing (creating employment) to meet the population needs rather than all this nonsense?

 

[The Horseman]

So all they have to do is show that they are 'trying' to get gameful employment and they are quids in? You need to watch the movie 'Trainspotting' if you haven't already, or watch it again if you have.
You do realise that for every employment relationship that there has to be a job offer in order for there to be a job acceptance?



So they will lose their social house if they don't show 'responsibilty'? Where will they live then? No income, no home, I'm guessing its out on the street?



Yes, you can enter to a mortgage re-structuring plan to delay, or reduce repayments for a period until you improve your circumstances. I assume it would be in your interest to do so? If not, then don't pay the mortgage, face eviction and join the top of social housing waiting list - because you will be the needy one.



If people are gaming the system they should be penalized. But having a spare room or two in a house or earning a high income while living in a house is not gaming the system. You may think it should be considered as 'gaming the system' but it is not. There are many, many reasons as to why it is not. Least of all the few scenarios I have outlined, the administration burden, the certain legal challenges (from evictees, human rights groups, and the EU), and all other factors attributable to mental health issues and evictions.



So will I, and hopefully it will never be on half-baked proposals like this which will cost a fortune with no end product.

I would suggest you read my posts fully before you go off on your rant.

If somebody can't get a job then their social welfare payments are reduced. I don't hold with the idea that "I am trying to get a job" so my welfare payments should not reduce. Anybody who is not sick and can't get a job after a couple of years on the social welfare needs to be investigated. If they have medical/physiological issues and have been medically assessed as so they that's fine they are excluded from the above.

If they don't have these issues and are doing everything not to get work then I have an issue with that. Your proposals don't do anything to incentivize these people to get gameful employment. They have a house for life, with a low rent and they will never be chastised or moved based on your stance.

I did not say you make somebody homeless if they don't show responsibility I said that you move them to a lower cost location. I don't know whether you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said to have an argument or you are just missing whats being said.

 

[Purple]

Daughter needs to move in to after sick father but it is only a one bed apartment? Sure it happens in the other world as well. Either make do, look into home care, nursing homes like all of us have to do at some stage.

See you are not getting it; the State should give them a two bedroom apartment on the off chance that a parent gets sick and the daughter moves in. In fact they should have a three bedroom house in case the son and his girlfriend move back in, no, wait, what if the son and the girlfriend break up? You can't expect her to move out so they'll need an extra bedroom for her just in case... what about the daughter, what about her partner? They might want to move in as well and sure what if they break up? Jasus, they need at least 5 bedrooms. There's no way I thought of everything so maybe 6, just in case.
Then when everyone but the daughter moves out and the parents die she can keep the house and rent out a few rooms.

 

[Purple]

If somebody can't get a job then their social welfare payments are reduced. I don't hold with the idea that "I am trying to get a job" so my welfare payments should not reduce. Anybody who is not sick and can't get a job after a couple of years on the social welfare needs to be investigated. If they have medical/physiological issues and have been medically assessed as so they that's fine they are excluded from the above.

If they don't have these issues and are doing everything not to get work then I have an issue with that. Your proposals don't do anything to incentivize these people to get gameful employment. They have a house for life, with a low rent and they will never be chastised or moved based on your stance.

I did not say you make somebody homeless if they don't show responsibility I said that you move them to a lower cost location. I don't know whether you are deliberately misinterpreting what is being said to have an argument or you are just missing whats being said.

You think people should provide for themselves?!! You're just one step away from being a fascist!
Next you'll be saying that there's a dignity in work and self reliance and people prosper mentally and physically when they stand on their own two feet. Sure you're very close to saying that State funding should be valued and allocate to those who need it most. People like you are what's wrong with this country.

 

[Firefly]

See you are not getting it; the State should give them a two bedroom apartment on the off chance that a parent gets sick and the daughter moves in. In fact they should have a three bedroom house in case the son and his girlfriend move back in, no, wait, what if the son and the girlfriend break up? You can't expect her to move out so they'll need an extra bedroom for her just in case... what about the daughter, what about her partner? They might want to move in as well and sure what if they break up? Jasus, they need at least 5 bedrooms. There's no way I thought of everything so maybe 6, just in case.

What about the grand kids? I mean they're surely not expected to share a room?

 

[Purple]

What about the grand kids? I mean their surely not expected to share a room?

I knew I missed something. I should be sent to a Social Democracy re-education Camp for a few weeks.

 

[Purple]

I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect, the only problem is that there are too few social houses.
Eventually we'll all get a social house with the current model, which is of course sustainable and fair (just like our State pension system, Public sector pay and pensions and all other forms of welfare) and everything will be great.

The only problem is the private sector, which unlike the Public Sector, is dysfunctional and inefficient. The reason for that is that all rich people, and people who work in banks in particular (but aren't in Unions), are greedy and immoral.


The State controlling more and more of our economy is a good thing and addressing the symptoms of inequality through wealth transfers rather than addressing the root cause of that inequality is the way to go.


We don't have to change any systems.
We don't have to reform any structures.
There is no waste.
The solution to every problem is to just spend more money.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is greedy, selfish, ignorant, uneducated, right-wing and morally bankrupt.

The scales have fallen from my eyes; I am reborn, Comrades!

 

[TheBigShort]

I would suggest you read my posts fully

I did.

If somebody can't get a job then their social welfare payments are reduced. I don't hold with the idea that "I am trying to get a job" so my welfare payments should not reduce. Anybody who is not sick and can't get a job after a couple of years on the social welfare needs to be investigated. If they have medical/physiological issues and have been medically assessed as so they that's fine they are excluded from the above.

But what if they are genuinely trying to get a job but are not being offered one? What if, god forbid, there is an economic crisis with tight employment markets? Not that anything like that would ever happen in a country like ours...Doh!

Will employers be investigated if they continually refuse to offer jobs?

If they don't have these issues and are doing everything not to get work then I have an issue with that.

Yes, I have an issue with that as well, but your answer is to starve them and force them onto the street until they act 'responsibily', which would just perpetuate the problem. How else am I supposed to read into this comment you made?

if this family are not trying to get gameful employment then their social welfare payments will reduce (therefore less income) if they have less income then they can't pay their rent

Your proposals don't do anything to incentivize these people to get gameful employment

Didn't you read my post in full? The family that ends up getting evicted under the new regime, ARE AT WORK! All of them!

I said that you move them to a lower cost location

What is a ‘lower cost location’?

 

[TheBigShort]

the State should give them a two bedroom apartment on the off chance that a parent gets sick and the daughter moves in. In fact they should have a three bedroom house in case the son and his girlfriend move back in, no, wait, what if the son and the girlfriend break up? You can't expect her to move out so they'll need an extra bedroom for her just in case... what about the daughter, what about her partner? They might want to move in as well and sure what if they break up? Jasus, they need at least 5 bedrooms. There's no way I thought of everything so maybe 6, just in case.

Or just play a game of musical chairs every week to see who gets to live where? Lets see, how many chairs have we got and how many people are looking for homes? Should be fun!

Then when everyone but the daughter moves out and the parents die she can keep the house and rent out a few rooms.

Taking people off the waiting lists, out of emergency accommodation, earning a living, paying taxes on that - renting out rooms, should someone wish to, is perfectly normal - happens all the time.

 

[TheBigShort]

that the model in place excludes a lot of working people from owning their own home by virtue of the market prices while simultaneously barring them from social housing by virtue of their income levels.

A market failure if ever there was one.

the whole thing is a sorry mess.

On the other hand, if social housing agencies are competing against one another, pushing up prices, then all that says to me is how desperate the situation has become - for everyone trying to find a home.

I don't disagree that having social housing agencies competing against each other is a bad thing. And, rather than dismiss the sense of desperation, I think it is a good thing to know how bad it is for anybody trying to find a home.

Everyone else is to the mercy of the market and the banking system, which has failed dismisally in providing a sustainable, affordable, housing market. This is the system we have chosen.
Unfortunately, the model of free market housing has turned housing into a commodity to be bought and sold for profit, rather than to be factored as a social necessity. Low and middle income earners, trying to get a foothold are typically being caught in the middle as this example shows.

But isn't this symptomatic of the dysfunction in the housing market?

To me it is simple, we need to build more housing, not only for the poorest but for working people too. The State is in the best position to resource the funding required.
The free market is dysfunctional and inept at providing a sustainable housing sector as it is predicated on the profit motive rather than the social need.

The State is responsible for the policy of providing housing. It has abdicated that responsibility in the main to the free market. Hence, then mess we are in now.

I have every sympathy for first-time buyers trying to buy a home. I have every sympathy for working professionals who are being fleeced with extortionate rents just so that they can live within a reasonable distance within their employment for which they have obtained through hard study and work.

From all of the above you deduced that I think the system is perfect?

I now realise that TheBigShort is correct and the system we have now is perfect

How about, don't turn a dysfunctional and socially deteriorating situation into a chaotic impoverishing and economically destructive one!

How about building more houses, and enough with the nonsense of 5-yr assessments and musical chairs?

 

[Firefly]

Yes, I have an issue with that as well

And what would be your solution?

 

[The Horseman]

I did.




But what if they are genuinely trying to get a job but are not being offered one? What if, god forbid, there is an economic crisis with tight employment markets? Not that anything like that would ever happen in a country like ours...Doh!

Will employers be investigated if they continually refuse to offer jobs?



Yes, I have an issue with that as well, but your answer is to starve them and force them onto the street until they act 'responsibily', which would just perpetuate the problem. How else am I supposed to read into this comment you made?





Didn't you read my post in full? The family that ends up getting evicted under the new regime, ARE AT WORK! All of them!



What is a ‘lower cost location’?

You said that the first family are employed and the second are not. My reference was to the second family. You are now cherry picking your quotes and using them out of context!